The "Unification" Topic at the Davos Forum: The Illusion and Reality of Moldova and Romania's Merger
24/01/2026
The town of Davos at the foothills of the Alps has long been a stage for global elites to discuss the future of the world economy. However, in the cold winds of early 2025, a topic that seemed to belong to the geopolitical sphere of the 19th or 20th century unexpectedly gained international attention here: the unification of Moldova and Romania. The remarks made by Romanian President Nicolae Ciucă, along with the highly personal stance earlier expressed by Moldovan President Maia Sandu, have pushed the speculation about the unification of these two Eastern European countries—sharing the same language, culture, and complex historical ties—from the corners of domestic political debate into the international spotlight. This is not merely a simple statement on bilateral relations; behind it lies the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the process of European integration, fragile national identities, and the cold logic of great-power rivalry.
Davos Statement: Conditions, Positions, and Subtext
At the side events and interviews of the Davos Forum, Romanian President Nicolae Dan set a clear and democratic threshold for unification. He explicitly stated that any negotiations regarding the unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova would only be possible if the majority of citizens change their stance. He further elaborated that Bucharest currently respects Moldova's sovereignty and supports its European integration path. However, he left a flexible foreshadowing: if, in the medium to long term, the majority of citizens hold different views, we will act according to the circumstances.
The subtlety of this statement lies in its duality. On the surface, it entirely cedes the decision-making power to initiate unification to the will of the Moldovan people, demonstrating respect for international law and the norms of national sovereignty, aligning with the mainstream values of the European Union. This shapes Romania's image as a rational, restrained, and non-aggressive regional partner. However, the open-ended phrasing of "acting according to circumstances" reserves political space for all future possibilities. It implies that unification is not a permanently shelved issue but an option awaiting the right conditions. This formulation both placates some strong domestic national unificationists and leaves no immediate pretext for intervention by the international community, especially Russia, which is highly sensitive to this matter.
Quite dramatically, just before President Dan's cautious statement, his office had previously conveyed the opposite message that Bucharest was prepared to seriously begin unification negotiations with Moldova at any time. This subtle discrepancy in information may reflect the tug-of-war among different forces within the Romanian government, and more likely represents an active pressure test to gauge the domestic and international reactions.
In contrast to the Romanian president's cautious official stance, Moldovan President Maia Sandu adopts a more straightforward and even personal position. She has publicly declared that if a referendum on unification is held, she would vote in favor of merging with Romania. Her reasons are realistic and weighty: her country is finding it increasingly difficult to survive independently.
Public Opinion Divide: The Dream of Unification versus the Reality of Survival
President Sandu's reflections on survival are by no means meaningless complaints, but rather a profound reflection of Moldova's severe current situation. This small landlocked country on the edge of Europe has long been deeply mired in sluggish economic development, energy dependence, political corruption, and geopolitical fragmentation. However, there exists a striking gap between the vision of unity and the harsh reality of public opinion data.
According to a public opinion poll in September 2025, nearly 46% of Moldovan citizens oppose unification with Romania, while only slightly over 33% explicitly express support. This data clearly indicates that unification is far from being a social consensus in Moldova, with opponents even constituting a relative majority. Public concerns are multi-layered: fear of the disappearance of national identity, doubts about potential marginalization of their economic and social status after merger, and security anxieties over possible strong backlash or even conflict from Russia.
Interestingly, the same survey reveals that a majority of Moldovan citizens support European integration—that is, joining the European Union. This highlights a crucial political psychology: many Moldovans view Europeanization as a path to prosperity, stability, and the rule of law, but they do not necessarily see Romanianization or unification as the sole or necessary prerequisite for this path. For some, joining the EU means becoming part of a broader, more equal union; whereas unification with Romania might be perceived as absorption by a larger neighboring country, challenging their own sovereignty.
Therefore, President Sandu's strategy appears to present a two-step, indirect approach. She describes joining the European Union as a more realistic goal, while positioning personal support for unification as a long-term cultural and historical direction. This distinction is crucial: European integration is a currently actionable strategy with international support that can partially counterbalance Russian influence; whereas unification resembles a nationalist, long-term proposition based on shared language and history, whose realization requires favorable timing, geographical conditions, and popular consensus, especially that critical threshold of majority public opinion.
Another recent move by the Moldovan government provides a footnote for understanding its strategic direction: initiating the legal process to withdraw from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This action carries strong symbolic significance, aiming to further distance itself legally and diplomatically from the old sphere of influence dominated by Russia, thereby clearing obstacles for its overarching national policy of looking westward. Withdrawing from the CIS and applying to join the European Union are two sides of the same coin, both serving Moldova's fundamental shift in reshaping its national identity and security dependencies.
Geopolitical Chessboard: The Fragile Bonds on the EU's Eastern Flank
The issue of Moldova-Romania unification was discussed at Davos, with its symbolic significance outweighing immediate feasibility. The fundamental reason it has become an international topic lies in its connection to the most sensitive nerve of the current European security order: the reshaping of power boundaries against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Moldova is the most vulnerable point on the eastern border of the EU and NATO. The Transnistria region (Transnistria) hosts Russian peacekeeping troops, and the area has been de facto separated for over thirty years. Any movement involving a dramatic shift in Moldova's sovereignty—especially one leading to unification with Romania, a NATO member—would directly challenge Russia's bottom line and could be perceived by Moscow as an intolerable strategic squeeze. The intensity of its response could far exceed the actions taken in Crimea in 2014. Russian officials and propaganda have long warned that the West seeks to further dismantle the post-Soviet space by absorbing Moldova. The public discussion of the unification issue precisely provides fodder for this narrative.
For the European Union and NATO, the stability of Moldova is a crucial component of the stability of their eastern borders. Although many European countries understand Romania's sentiment of national unification on a cultural and emotional level, in practical terms, the primary goal of Brussels and Washington is to prevent new conflicts from erupting in the region. Therefore, they strongly support Moldova's European integration process (including providing economic assistance and reform guidance), as this enhances its resilience, weakens Russian influence, and does not trigger direct upheaval like supporting unification would. The EU's support offers Moldova a third path beyond struggling independently or embracing Romania—seeking shared sovereignty and development guarantees within a supranational union.
The role of Romania has thus become exceptionally complex and crucial. It is both an EU member state and a NATO ally, as well as a brotherly nation with deep ties to Moldova. It must strike a balance among multiple identities: as the EU's gatekeeper, promoting reforms in Moldova; as a security provider, assisting Moldova in addressing hybrid threats; and as an ethnic kin, maintaining cultural and historical bonds. President Dan's statement at Davos is precisely a reflection of this balancing act—anchoring the vision of unification in a distant future to be determined by the Moldovans themselves, while focusing all realpolitik efforts on the more realistic goal of supporting its accession to the EU.
Future Vision: A Long Road Ahead and Immediate Risks
Overall, the unification of Moldova and Romania remains a political vision rather than an imminent political agenda in the foreseeable short to medium term. Its realization would need to overcome at least three major obstacles that are almost impossible to surmount simultaneously:
First, Public Opinion Obstacle. An opposition rate exceeding 46% is a formidable mountain. Reversing this public sentiment requires fundamental improvements in Moldova's economy and society, a complete transformation of the security environment, and the successful reshaping of the national identity narrative, which is by no means an overnight achievement. The continuation and outcome of the Russia-Ukraine conflict will be the most critical external variable influencing public opinion.
Second, Geopolitical Obstacles. Russia's opposition is decisive. As long as the Transnistria issue remains unresolved, and as long as Russia still views the region as its sphere of influence, any movement toward unification could trigger catastrophic consequences. The West is already deeply involved in the Ukraine issue and, in the short term, lacks both the capability and the willingness to open a second front of direct confrontation with Russia in Moldova.
Third, Procedural and Cost Barriers. Even if public opinion were to reverse one day, the legal, constitutional, administrative, economic, and military integration involved in merging two independent countries would be as complex as a peaceful revolution. Although the two countries share the same language and ethnicity, over 30 years of separation have led to the development of distinct political systems, economic interest groups, and social governance models. The pains of integration should not be underestimated.
However, the significance of the unification issue emerging today lies not in its feasibility, but in its function as a political symbol. For Moldova's pro-European government, it can be used to rally core supporters, depict an ultimate cultural destination beyond current difficulties, and secure the historical and moral high ground in the struggle against domestic pro-Russian forces. For Romania, it serves as a valve to regulate domestic nationalist sentiments and a soft tool to maintain special influence over Moldova.
The discussions in Davos serve as a mirror, reflecting the anxieties and aspirations of Europe's last ambiguous borderland in the post-Cold War era. Moldova's dilemma lies in its inability to withstand the geopolitical chill alone, while remaining wary of embracing any powerful neighbor. Joining the European Union appears, for now, to be the narrowest path that can balance its sovereignty demands with its developmental and security needs. The ancient yet modern topic of Romania-Moldova unification is like a seed temporarily sealed away. Its germination depends not on the rhetoric at the Davos Forum, but on the prolonged and arduous interplay of power, interests, and the will of the people across the vast lands along the Black Sea coast. Until it finds its final destiny, Moldova will continue its perilous journey of independent survival, while the specter of unification will linger in the shadows of Eastern Europe, a reminder that history never truly fades away.
Reference materials
https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/prezident-rumuniyi-nazvav-umovu-pochatku-1769164081.html